| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | S Arvind <arvindwill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Confusion on shared buffer |
| Date: | 2009-10-04 01:02:12 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070910031802x4de8770l29d271185474360@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind <arvindwill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks Robert,
> So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be noted
> for performance.
Tough to say without benchmarking, but if you have a lot of small
databases that easily fit in RAM, and a lot of concurrent connections,
I would think you'd want to spend your hardware $ on maximizing the
number of cores.
But there are many in this forum who have much more experience with
these things than me, so take that with a grain of salt...
(You might also want to look at consolidating some of those databases
- maybe use one database with multiple schemas - that would probably
help performance significantly.)
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | imad | 2009-10-04 02:27:46 | Re: Performance problems with DISTINCT ON |
| Previous Message | S Arvind | 2009-10-03 06:11:41 | Re: Confusion on shared buffer |